Date: 20000619
Docket: T-2109-98
Between:
GILLES TREMBLAY
Plaintiff
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA
Defendant
- and -
REVENUE CANADA
Defendant
(mis-en-cause)
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
DENAULT J.
[1] By an application for judicial review filed pursuant to s. 18.1 of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, the plaintiff is asking the Court to find to be void or illegal a certificate issued against him by the Department of National Revenue (now the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency) pursuant to s. 223(2) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985 (5th Supp.), c. 1 ("the Act") and registered in this Court on October 5, 1998 pursuant to s. 223(3) of the Act.
[2] Although the plaintiff's record refers to a large number of facts and documents, not much is really relevant to the disposition of this case and it may be disposed of quite briefly.
[3] Between July 4, 1995 and July 4, 1997 the plaintiff received five notices of assessment for unpaid tax, penalties and interest for the taxation years 1990 to 1994 inclusive. The notices of objection filed by the plaintiff to these assessments were all dismissed on the ground that they were filed after the deadline. In order to recover his debt, the Minister of National Revenue ("the Minister") sent demands for payment forthwith pursuant to s. 224(1) of the Act to various third parties so as to intercept money due or to become due from the plaintiff.
[4] On October 5, 1998 a certificate ("the certificate") was registered with the Federal Court of Canada in case ITA-7914-98, certifying that the plaintiff owed Her Majesty the Queen the sum of $14,133.65 plus interest compounded daily, payable at the rate prescribed under the Act, for the period from September 29, 1998 until payment in full -- all with respect to 1990 to 1994 inclusive.1
[5] On November 13, 1998 the plaintiff filed this application for judicial review in which he asked the Court to find certificate ITA-7914-98 to be void and illegal on the ground that it is abusive, unjustified, unreasonable, excessive and causes him injury. Further, the plaintiff argued not only that the amount claimed from him was incorrect but that the certificate issued against him infringes art. 3 of the Civil Code of Quebec, ss. 8 and 12 of the Canadian Charter or Rights and Freedoms and the immunity from seizure of periodic disability benefits pursuant to a contract of accident and sickness insurance, provided by art. 553(8) of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure.
[6] The defendant, for its part, submitted that the certificate was legally registered since the Minister complied with all the conditions required by the Act before certifying the plaintiff's debt. The defendant further submitted that the fact that the amount of the debt was reduced is of no relevant to the legality of the certificate. Finally, the defendant argued that the certification of a tax debt is an everyday practice which has already been found consistent with the Canadian Charter.2
[7] As appeared at the hearing, the plaintiff is to be commended for arguing his case himself without the aid of counsel. However, the Court has to say that the plaintiff, who is not familiar with the Rules of this Court and the various actions at his disposal, confused facts and arguments and did not fully understand the limits of an application for judicial review.
[8] Relying on a judgment of the Tax Court of Canada on July 11, 1998 which gave the right, for the 1995 taxation year, to a physical impairment tax credit, the plaintiff essentially sought to show that if this decision were applied to prior years (1986 to 1995),3 he probably would not have owed the Revenue Department the sum of $14, 133.65 for which the Minister caused a certificate to be registered on October 5, 1998, an amount which in any case was shortly afterwards reduced to $5,131.68.4 However, it appeared that the reduction of the amount was due to application of the request for equity mentioned by the plaintiff in his correspondence with Revenue Canada after the certificate was registered, namely November 16, 1998 (see note 3).
[9] It is not in dispute in the case at bar that the Minister complied with all the conditions required by the Act before certifying the plaintiff's debt. What the plaintiff is disputing is essentially the necessity of the Minister resorting to the registration of a certificate when all the plaintiff's recourses had not, in his submission, been exhausted.
[10] However, the Court considers that in view of the fact that (a) the notices of objection from 1990 to 1994 were dismissed, and (b) the Tax Court of Canada decision only applied to the 1995 taxation year, the Minister in registering the certificate of October 5, 1998 simply exercised the discretionary power conferred on him by s. 223(2) of the Income Tax Act. There is nothing to indicate that he abused this power in the case at bar, acted in bad faith or took into account facts irrelevant or unrelated to the situation in dispute.
[11] For these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed, without costs.
ORDER
The application for judicial review is dismissed without costs.
| PIERRE DENAULT Judge |
Ottawa, Ontario
June 19, 2000
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
| COURT No.: T-2109-98 |
| STYLE OF CAUSE: Gilles Tremblay v. Her Majesty the Queen et al. |
| PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Que. |
| DATE OF HEARING: June 15, 2000 |
| REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER BY: DENAULT J. |
| DATED: June 19, 2000 |
APPEARANCES:
| Gilles Tremblay FOR HIMSELF |
| Dominique Gagné FOR THE DEFENDANT |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT |
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
__________________1 See "statement of account for certificate", defendants' record, p. 4 and affidavit by Jocelyne Deziel, p. 2 (para. 4.).
2 Deputy Sheriff v. R. (1989), 39 B.C.L.R. (2d) 41 (Supreme Court of British Columbia), affirmed by British Columbia Court of Appeal: [1992] 2 C.T.C. 427.
3 Plaintiff's letter to Revenue Canada, 16/11/98, defendants' record, p. 7.